It’s no secret: climate change is a threat to peace and security

Last week, the UN Security Council met for a special session on the ‘Security Dimensions of Climate Change’.

You may have not heard about this. The meeting was held behind closed doors because some permanent members of the Council were opposed to it being a ‘formal meeting’. Hence, there were no official press releases, no quotes from senior UN officials and no written record or outcome, besides the limited media coverage.

The meeting was co-chaired by Pakistan. To the people of Pakistan, the links between climate change and security are not a secret and cannot be kept behind closed doors. Many of them experience the impacts on a daily basis.

And while heightened vulnerability is making the impact of exposure to extreme events in Pakistan worse, it is also no secret that the occurrence of these extreme events is not limited to Pakistan, or to the developing world.

This is something people in the US and Australia could personally attest to in recent months. In the US, 2012 has been declared the hottest year on record, with the 12 hottest years on record all coming in the last 15 years. Superstorm Sandy has demonstrated once again the full might of extreme weather events, while the Australian summer has brought record-breaking high temperatures, fires, floods and droughts.

The adverse impacts of climate change make it clear that security cannot be confined to the absence of conflict or to military terms.

Back in 1994 the UN Development Programme said: "Human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons – it is a concern with human life and dignity."

It is therefore clear that when we talk about true security we must insist on acknowledging that climate change now poses the greatest risk to both national and international security. Climate change causes droughts, storms, fires and sea level rise. These all lead to increased vulnerability, famine, poverty, migration and conflicts.

This is no secret. The risks can no longer be hushed up, nor ignored.

The international community has been painstakingly slow to address the challenge. And while bringing the issue before the Security Council, the UN’s most powerful body, may help in injecting a sense of urgency into the debate, so far the Council has also been reluctant to take an active role.

Last week’s discussion is in fact the third time this issue was debated at the Security Council. The first occasion, back in 2007, the discussion was dominated by questions of jurisdiction: many delegates (Pakistan included) thought the Security Council was not the correct forum to discuss the risks of climate change, as it was an issue of ‘sustainable development’, while the Security Council role was ‘to maintain international peace and security’.

Then, four years later in 2011, the Council held another open debate on the impact of climate change on peace and security. The Council, once again focusing on issues of jurisdiction, was not able to agree on a resolution but did adopt a watered down statement, cautiously talking about ‘possible adverse effects of climate change’.

Call for action

But don’t be fooled by the diplomatic language – adverse impacts are not only possible nor probable, they are certain.

And what really brought home this realisation to those following the discussion was the call for action by President Marcus Stephen of Nauru, exposing the hypocrisy behind the Council focusing on procedure rather than on the matter at hand.

Speaking on behalf of some 14 island states vulnerable to disappearing or at least losing significant territory to rising sea levels, Stephen said: "What if the pollution coming from our island nations was threatening the very existence of the major emitters? What would be the nature of today’s debate under those circumstances? Let history recall that once again we have sounded the alarm and the world chose not to act."

It seems that finally, the realisation that it is not only Island States that are at risk, is starting to hit home, at least with some of those ‘big emitters’. Earlier last week we watched as US President Barack Obama made a commitment during his State of the Union address to protect future generations from the risk of climate change. And while this commitment is yet to be translated into actions, it seems that it will no longer be possible to treat climate change as something threatening other people only, in distant parts of the world.

So why is it that the Security Council is still shying away from openly discussing it? Why keep it behind closed doors?

I am totally unable to understand your attitude of climate change. CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. CO2 in air is the only and the lonely source of food for the whole kingdom of vegetation. every plant absorbs CO2 in air, takes carbon as the basic and essential source for its food next releases oxygen back to air. Consequently, whenever any animal and every human being open his mouth to eat anything, the source of this food is CO2 in air.

Climate change is due to our increase of energy consumption, we have now more cars, more chimneys, and more industries, all these are dumping in air extra heat through their exhaust.

Now you are claiming to be a protector of the environment, however your understanding is totally irrelevant and wrong. CO2 in air is the primary source of our food, climate change is due to the excess of dumping hot exhaust gases in air.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Teresa Blakeslee
says:

317v, please do an experiment. Take 2 potted plants and 2 boxes of fertilizer. Use the recommended amount on the first plant. Pour the ENTIRE BOX on t...

317v, please do an experiment. Take 2 potted plants and 2 boxes of fertilizer. Use the recommended amount on the first plant. Pour the ENTIRE BOX on the second plant. See which one survives. It is the same thing with CO2. The correct amount is good for the plants and vegetation, but too much causes irreparable harm, and that is where our oxygen comes from. I have grandchildren. I would like to leave them breathable air, and clean water-something you don't seem to be real worried about. I can't afford the new electric cars, but I do drive one of the best on gas mileage, as well as one of the least polluters. I plant my own food, because I don't want all the pesticides. I live at the ocean where all that crap drains downriver from the cities. We can't even swim at certain times of the year, due to the pollution. Do some research. Check with your county's health department and see what is in YOUR water. You will be surprised!

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Zexesl2
says:

@3l7v
Apparently you don't get how greenhouse effect works. CO2 and Methane are the two main gases causing it.
So, question yourself b...

@3l7v
Apparently you don't get how greenhouse effect works. CO2 and Methane are the two main gases causing it.
So, question yourself before saying the other's understanding is "totally irrelevant and wrong".

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) luis
says:

CO2 is a gas that is in the atmosphere naturally. The problem is that after the industrial revolution, the CO2 emmissions overwhelmed the earth's ...

CO2 is a gas that is in the atmosphere naturally. The problem is that after the industrial revolution, the CO2 emmissions overwhelmed the earth's carrying capacity. Therefore, it is being emmitted more C02 than the environment uses to work properly. This mismatch between human emmissions and natural consumption is the responsible of the increasing greenhouse effect.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) one solution
says:

I do not waste time talking with people that do not understand climate change... and although all the talk about renewable energy ideas and increased ...

I do not waste time talking with people that do not understand climate change... and although all the talk about renewable energy ideas and increased efficiency are welcome... they all fall far short of the drastic steps that are needed to be taking by the human race as a whole. The one solution is for a massive greening of the deserts by salt water agro... I will write more later with links to web sites...

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) one solution
says:

almost all humans pollute with CO2... (those that don't wish the could, and just might start doing so as the world is developing at an amazing rat...

almost all humans pollute with CO2... (those that don't wish the could, and just might start doing so as the world is developing at an amazing rate (more and more CO2, no matter what we do...) one solution is massive greening of the desserts http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/seawater.html

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) one solution
says:

drastic greening of the desserts for salt water agro is needed (large cooling from evaporation/ and then more rain will be created down wind plus farm...

drastic greening of the desserts for salt water agro is needed (large cooling from evaporation/ and then more rain will be created down wind plus farms themselves will serve as bio fuel and food sources) this is it, nothing else will save us.... we can continue to support world wide efforts on the traditional topics but above it all we need to create world wide "greendessert" projects based on the super available salt water of the world. This tech exists.. sure it has to be funded.. what about a carbon tax... people don't mind paying if they know their money is going to work on solving the problem...

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) TOM210
says:

317v. It is not the heat that causes global warming. Of course CO2 is in the air, I'm pretty sure no one is questioning you on that. It is when th...

317v. It is not the heat that causes global warming. Of course CO2 is in the air, I'm pretty sure no one is questioning you on that. It is when there is too much of it, along with other greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere, that we get global warming. CO2 has the largest, negative impact on global warming, read this article and many more like it if you don't believe me.

The greenhouse effect is when the suns heat hits the earth but cannot escape as much as usual because of increased gases in the atmosphere. The world gets hotter gradually. Hope you now understand basic biology.